This Would Be The Most Unethical Tweet Of Any Normal Year, But The 2019 Competition Is Too Tough…

I can’t respect anyone who would support a candidate who could think this, much less publish it, to be President of the United States.

By the way, did you know that President Trump is a threat to democracy? Bernie has said so many times.

Sanders really needs to bone up on what “democracy,” “rule of law,” “due process,” “ex post facto,” and other core concepts mean.

Trump puts out tweets like this occasionally, suggesting that there “should” be some way to legally penalize various individuals who do things that are completely legal. This usually spawns angry, insulting and indignant op eds all over the media. I will patiently wait for the equivalent reaction to Bernie’s tweet. In vain.

Will anyone ask Sanders about this sentiment in the next debate?

For a U.S. Senator and political leader to state that it is appropriate to imprison U.S. citizens for the non-existent crime of not conforming to progressive cant is itself undermining democracy.

Yet Presidential candidates who do this should not be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they are knowingly causing. They should be ridiculed, condemned, and ignored.

Wanting to criminalize and imprison people for engaging in things that are constitutionally protected and legal is not new rhetoric from the political left, in fact it is becoming much more acceptable, and even expected in some progressive circles, for them to openly state such totalitarian fascists things…

The left is irretrievably broken with democracy, rule of law, due process and for the most part reality.

Again; Kamala Harris is the only Democratic Party candidate that checks all the boxes for the woken social justice warrior progressives that are running the Democratic Party now. If the Democratic Party doesn’t pick Harris as their nominee then they’re hypocrites (big surprise) and all their woken social justice warrior progressives will need a lot of additional psychological treatment to help prevent them from a complete psychological break with reality. It’s now or never for the Democratic Party’s aspirations of turning the USA into their totalitarian utopia and I think they know that.

I guess for me I will vote for the candidate who limits government involvement in my life. The irony is that being conservative today means being very liberal in terms of giving citizens the most freedom to do and say what they please.
The only thing conservatives truly want to limit citizens from doing is aborting fetuses and not taking personal responsibilities.

Citizens are not limited from coming or going. I had to reword that a bit to avoid conflating violating citizen and legal resident rights and laws that affect entry of non citizens.

The only thing conservatives want to limit (end) is ILLEGAL immigration. The only reason we are looking to reduce the number of refugees or legal immigrants is that we have allowed our borders to be violated with relative impunity for so many years and need time to assimilate or deal with the millions who reside here in the shadows.

The only thing conservatives want to limit (end) is ILLEGAL immigration. The only reason we are looking to reduce the number of refugees or legal immigrants is that we have allowed our borders to be violated with relative impunity for so many years and need time to assimilate or deal with the millions who reside here in the shadows.

Though I am still interested in and involved only in theory — I am not ready to make definitive pronouncements — I might try to explore what a (truly) conservative path forward might be. But we must start from the true sense of the word: a Conservative must conserve (something).

Con·serve (kən-sûrv′)
v. con·served, con·serv·ing, con·serves
v.tr.
1.
a. To protect from loss or harm; preserve: calls to conserve our national heritage in the face of bewildering change.
b. To use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste: kept the thermostat lower to conserve energy.
2. To keep (a quantity) constant through physical or chemical reactions or evolutionary changes.
3. To preserve (fruits) with sugar.
v.intr.
To economize: tried to conserve on fuel during the long winter.
n. (kŏn′sûrv′)
A jam made of fruits stewed in sugar.
[Middle English conserven, from Old French conserver, from Latin cōnservāre : com-, intensive pref.; see com- + servāre, to preserve; see ser- in Indo-European roots.]

First, the thing to be conserved must be defined. But one cannot start from the point at which hyper-radicalism had already entered in and altered that which should be conserved or have been conserved.

You see, I read what you write (and what most who write here write) and I am forced to say that you are not Conservatives. You have accepted the status quo — the status quo is that of radicalism in various forms and came about through radical movements, and then you say you want to ‘conserve’ something-or-other. You are merely playing at ‘conservatism’ or striking a pose.

To start, you would have to define the social structure and those specific beings that began the country. They said: We establish this for ourselves and our progeny. What they created flowed out of themselves, in the sense that it was a natural creation of themselves as Europeans. Is that what you wish to conserve? Hardly! You will not and you do not think in such terms. But a true Conservative would, does and must. So, one has to work to define what it is one would preserve. Are you saying that what you want to preserve and conserve is the radical motion that has been established? Because that is what has been established, and that is what is moving. It moves constantly because it defines no anchor. By its nature it advances & mutates & transforms & transmogrifies. More properly, this is what *you* and other liberals actually do define! You just seem to get upset that someone releases the brake-mechanism when you would rather it happen a bit more slowly.

How could you possibly preserve or conserve either America or Europe if you do not and cannot recognize that it is these people who have created the systems that we and they live in? You cannot simply drop in some Congolese or some Fijians and actually imagine that they will mesh with the established current. How is it that you have gotten to this point that you do think like that? It certainly was not a conservative movement of the intellect that produced that assertion. It was more truthfully speaking that of having accepted radical ideas: radical philosophical ideas and radical anthropological ideas. You see, when one scratches the surface of you one does not find anything ‘Conservative’ at all but rather a slightly cooled radicalism. It is American Radicalism and it very definitely has strong and obvious links to French Radicalism and the Enlightenment.

It is OBVIOUS that to be a Conservative one must define what it is that one is to conserve, and the first order of business is oneself (one’s people I mean, of course) at a somatic level. That is the starting point. One must be brave enough to see this as a truth, and properly situated in conservative notions and philosophy to be able to hold to the idea in the face of a terrifying onslaught. That would amount to conservatism standing up to radicalism.

But let’s face the facts: you cannot do this. What is it that interposes itself and insists that you not see and understand this basic point? And if it operates in this area, how many other areas does it operate in? These are the bold questions’ and someone has to ask them.

Actually, a ‘real conservative’ would go much further than putting a stop to illegal immigration. This is obvious. A pseudo-conservative might take the tack you recommend though, this I admit. Certainly a mild liberal or a standard liberal would recommend what you recommend. But I suggest that what a ‘real Conservative’ would want is to be 100% sure that a European-derived supermajority status would be recovered and maintained. It requires a conservative frame of mind to see and understand why: Only those people, only that people, will desire to maintain the systems that they have created for themselves and which flowed out of themselves. So, they have to conserve themselves, but then there is a whole long list of what else must be conserved, and hundreds of sound reasons why. If you cannot or will not see this in respect to America, at the least you might do so in respect to Europe.

“…we have allowed our borders to be violated with relative impunity for so many years and need time to assimilate or deal with the millions who reside here in the shadows.”

Frankly you could just as readily say that all those who entered — illegally or licitly in fact — should be sent home. Why would you not say that is my question. Because that would be a rather strong manifestation of a conserving spirit: to conserve what had been created, what is theirs, what genuinely belongs to them, and for which there is no good reason for it to be shared or divided out to anyone else. Why cannot you take such a tack? Why is this not your starting point?

The answer is really really simple: you are not a Conservative. You are (more properly) a libertarian or a semi-conservative liberal who has absorbed a radical ideology and accept it as good and natural.

In the world the Democratic Party envisions, there will only be three freedoms: the freedom to get an abortion, the freedom to vote for Democrats, and the freedom to ask permission to do anything else, which will rarely be granted. Hard to believe that the party that Andrew Jackson first led, on the principle of encouraging greater inclusiveness and participation, that led Truman to rescue Berlin and stand up to tyranny in Korea, that led JFK to stop the Soviets turning Cuba into a missile base, etc., has now come to this. Anyone who supports this guy for office might as well campaign for Noam Chomsky to become president.

Hard to believe that the party that Andrew Jackson first led, on the principle of encouraging greater inclusiveness and participation, that led Truman to rescue Berlin and stand up to tyranny in Korea, that led JFK to stop the Soviets turning Cuba into a missile base, etc., has now come to this. Anyone who supports this guy for office might as well campaign for Noam Chomsky to become president.

Nice. Very good. ::: clap clap :::

Yet what you do not include here, and I suspect you cannot see it, is how the entire System of government and industry is substantially allied with the policies of the Democrat Party. When you talk about this Party you are really talking about the way the country now functions and the degree to which these policies have become institutionalized. What has happened in America, at these points, connects to ‘managerial revolutions’ that are part-and-parcel of what the Dissident Right refers to, rather broadly, as ‘globalization’.

My observation is that there is no one — definitely no one among the Republicans a vitally compromised and corrupt party with direct correspondences to Democrat corruption — who can define a ‘way forward’ in this present. There is no one with a sound vision, and anyway the country is approaching a fracture-point because of the demographic shifts. Can you see a way around this? I cannot see present trends suddenly reversing.

The System itself will send out paramilitary agents to defeat those — that could be you in fact — who stand in the way of the machinations of the present which are governmental-managerial, globalized and economic.

All of this leads back to the question of Which America is being talked about? The America that you seem to talk about is now a historical vestige. It is like you are speaking to a ghost that you have invoked.

It is so strange to be among people whose vision is so (apparently) limited. The part I cannot figure out, try as I might, is what does that? What force acts to keep perception molded in these ways?

Chris writes: “I guess for me I will vote for the candidate who limits government involvement in my life. The irony is that being conservative today means being very liberal in terms of giving citizens the most freedom to do and say what they please. The only thing conservatives truly want to limit citizens from doing is aborting fetuses and not taking personal responsibilities.”

Interesting. But by this definition you are not a Conservative but more a Libertarian. A Libertarian, again by definition, gives to “citizens the most freedom to do and say what they please”. A Conservative creates a culture through studied action which does not allow, or resists with tremendous force, the encroachment of deleterious notions, actions, sentiments and finally outcomes.

In order to face what has happened in our present, it is the ‘Conservative’ who must be called to task and put on trial. I do not mean an actual trial of course. But let me take what Bernie has said as a starting point for delving into certain ideas. He said:

Fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused.

Let us take this idea, invert it, turn it around, and super-charge it differently: let us begin to examine, and to rectify, the causal chain that is producing the absurd and dangerous present which shows itself on the verge of rounding *us* up and putting us in psychiatric prisons [hello Spartan] or in reeducation camps. Let us seek-out and let us name those specific persons who allowed for these radicalization-processes to go forward. Wilmot Robertson puts a great emphasis on the radical justices of the Supreme Court. These radical social processes were set in motion and condoned by leading figures in our society. They can be found and they can be named.

So, I obviously suggest that the spirit of rectification, and the spirit of reversal, is akin to a jurisprudential procedure: but there has to be a person there, an intellect, who can accurate see and judge causality.

It should be obvious that this will never — not in two hundred billion years — come about at the hands of Libertarians. The reasons are obvious: in whatever direction one goes, be it toward Hyper-Liberalism or Ultra-Conservatism (of a genuine sort I must add) there is required activism and value-impositions, not the elimination of them.

I have just now resumed reading ‘The Dispossessed Majority’ and the chapters dealing with the jurisprudential machinations of the 1960s period which have set the stage for the radical-liberalism of the present.

A couple of observations: 1) If we accept that all that we are now seeing and witnessing has a causal origin, and if we accept that it is in this time-period (more or less), then we should be able to trace-out how it came about step-by-step.

2) If we can do that — an intellectual and historical research project in which we anchor ourselves within specific and defined values — we are then in a position to be able to visualize how it might be reversed: also through jurisprudential activism.

Savigny (1779-1861): “Law is no more made by lawyers than language by grammarians. Law is the natural moral product of the people . . . and the persistent customs of a nation, springing organically from its past and present. Even statute law lives in a general consensus of the people.”

The only thing conservatives truly want to limit citizens from doing is aborting fetuses and not taking personal responsibilities.

I would prefer it if you would avoid suggesting that you have any idea at all about how the present perverse excesses will be remediated, and also that you would stop assuming that you have any idea what Conservatism is . . . when you do not seem to be one, not really.

If this is your definition of what a ‘Conservative’ does then I must — with respect — point out that you have a deranged perspective. Please do not take offense. This is not an ad hominem attack but one concerned citizen speaking to another. I am only focusing on the structure of your ideas. They are not conservative, unless you transvalue the ideas on which Conservatism is based.

While it is true that the State cannot intervene and stop people who want to say whatever they wish to say, from a Conservative perspective it is imperative to take a stand against false-ideas or pernicious ideas and to combat them with force. I would suggest also with ‘extreme force’ and I do not mean with violence.

And this is what *you* cannot do (that is a *you-plural* and it is a convention of language to refer to a huge generality of persons who have been neutered intellectually). Your libertarianism cannot allow you to intervene. But this is exactly how the society was undermined: through neglect of ‘personal responsibility’.

Aliza:
You wrote, “A Conservative creates a culture through studied action which does not allow, or resists with tremendous force, the encroachment of deleterious notions, actions, sentiments and finally outcomes.”

I would be interested in seeing your list of deleterious notions, actions, sentiments and final outcomes that are arising from the perverse excesses you claim are occurring. A simple list will suffice. That will allow the reader to know what your version of conservativism is fighting against.

How exactly does a conservative create a culture of studied action if it does not try new ideas? One cannot identify and resist with tremendous force the encroachment of deleterious notions, actions and sentiments without testing them first. That suggests a willingness to try does it not?

You went on to say, “ I would prefer it if you would avoid suggesting that you (Aliza is referring to me personally) have any idea at all about how the present perverse excesses will be remediated, and also that you would stop assuming that you have any idea what Conservatism is . . . when you do not seem to be one, not really.

If this is your definition of what a ‘Conservative’ does then I must — with respect — point out that you have a deranged perspective. Please do not take offense. This is not an ad hominem attack but one concerned citizen speaking to another. I am only focusing on the structure of your ideas. They are not conservative, unless you transvalue the ideas on which Conservatism is based.”

I apologize that I did not know you were with Moses on the mount when you brought back the clinical definition of conservatism. I have found there are many variations of conservatism. So I find it a bit presumptuous of you to know exactly what defines conservativism. Some definitions are so extreme that they actually violate the definition you gave; unless of course you see the mixing of races to be deleterious because such mixing by definition must dilute the superiority of one – preferred – race’s genes. I ruled out that form of conservatism, as have most people because it cannot be demonstrated there is any deleterious effect on society by such mixing.

You know, I would prefer it if you edited all the non-essential asides from your posts to make them more readable. Additionally, you can take all the offense that you want and as a concerned citizen I can tell you that your input is noted but unconvincing. Conservatism is not some monolithic set of ideas that must be followed in lockstep. If it is, then it is authoritarian and without merit because authoritarianism is antithetical and a deleterious notion to individual liberty that will lead to negative societal outcomes.

Whether we are evaluating conservatism versus liberalism, right versus left, or capitalism versus communism each is measured on a continuum of extreme positions. Just because you fall substantially farther right of center than I does not make my perspective any more deranged than I could say of yours.

I would be interested in seeing your list of deleterious notions, actions, sentiments and final outcomes that are arising from the perverse excesses you claim are occurring. A simple list will suffice. That will allow the reader to know what your version of conservatism is fighting against.

That would not be the best way to begin though. First, I see no way around starting from the meaning of the word, as I indicated. Conservatism must involve conserving something. It must logically also operate from the understanding that dissolution is possible and likely.

If this is so, and it is, a definition of conservatism would arise from an awareness of mutability and of instability within the phenomenal world. This of course turns us back to the understanding that dissolution occurs and is part-and-parcel of nature and is a primary condition of de rerum natura: the way things are.

But if this is recognized, then the philosophical object, or the existential object — the intellectual object — is to try to define what is permanent and lasting. Since the earth and the *world* is by nature bound up in mutation and change, the intellectual object becomes to define ‘metaphysical constants’.

The metaphysical constants are the constant object of conservative thought. It is simply a logical necessity. The so-called ‘Whig theory of history which asserts that the most advanced point in time represents the point of highest development’ (Richard Weaver) is an idea that arose not from a conservative metaphysical conception, but rather from its opposite.

Conservatism by definition and by convention is oriented not to augmentation of novelty but by an intellectual effort to define what is metaphysically constant and by nature non-novel. And what is metaphysically constant is by nature a set of ideas which are discovered, defined and held in a mind capable of seeing and understanding them.

How exactly does a conservative create a culture of studied action if it does not try new ideas? One cannot identify and resist with tremendous force the encroachment of deleterious notions, actions and sentiments without testing them first. That suggests a willingness to try does it not?

You have just contradicted not only yourself — and this is why you are not a Conservative — but the basic premise on which conservatism and traditionalism is based. All conservative thinking — that I am aware of — always seeks to ground itself in defined intellectual concepts, in metaphysics, that it recognizes as timeless, or perhaps ‘outside of time’ is the way to put it.

Your questions indicate that you are more interested in novelty and experimentation. That is why I describe you as an American Radical. And also as a libertarian. The questions that you ask prove my point.

Thomas Carlyle: “But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion.”

In what you write you indicate ‘what you do practically believe’ though you have not ever actually thought it through. For this reason you have not ever ‘asserted it to yourself’ nor to any other. But it is ‘practically laid to heart’, that is it is your fundamental and basic belief. Your metaphysics.

What I have tried to do for five long arduous years is to show *you* (a convention of grammar my *you* and one that indicates the great generality but very definitely the basic tenets of Jack, of Steve of NJ and 99.99% of those who here call themselves and who actually think of themselves! — erroneously — as ‘Conservatives’) that you are not really dealing in conservative ideas and that you are not really Conservatives. You have accepted all of the tenets of specific and rather late American forms of thinking and these are, by their nature, not conservative but rather radical.

You could ask Why is this project of yours important to you? Why does it matter? I have made reference to an answer about a thousand times. So here it is again:

You are now living the end result of the maturation of these processes of radical transmogrification. *They* are right on the verge of rising up and slaying you. You are watching this as it takes place. I am of course making not a whimsical baseless rhetorical reference to the Revolution in Haiti in 1791, or to the present tragedy taking place now in South Africa and the *Rainbow Nation*, but am referring to it as something that has acute importance and something that you and of course ‘Conservatives’ should be vitally concerned about.

The reason this is all happening is because what is happening is a result of the radical ideas which pervade the culture. Not conservative ideas, but radical ideas. You are a perfect example of how these ideas operate. You don’t even know you have them because no one has ever forced you to examine them.

Just refer back to the Carlyle quote: “…the thing a man does practically lay to heart, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion.”

What I write is incomprehensible to you! And that is why I constantly get complaints. Not because there is something (much) wrong with my prose, but because you cannot grasp what I am trying to bring to your attention. This is an intellectual failing on *your* part.

You see? And therefore I say that you are connected with the problem which you notice in ‘others’ and which you constantly complain about. But complain is all that you do! And mere complaint is virtually useless. I go on to say that it is the American Conservative [sic] who is profoundly connected to the problem of the present because — just like you! — you are not defining anything at all to be conserved. You are profoundly invested in American Radicalism; you accept all of its tenets; and you work in the same direction (more or less) as the Progressives.

The only way that this will change is if there is an intellectual awakening.

You know, I would prefer it if you edited all the non-essential asides from your posts to make them more readable.

No sir!

You are going to have to bring yourself up to the point where you understand what I am talking about. That will involve real work. I have said it before and I will say it again: I take ‘the dumbing down of America’ as a real thing.

You as a nation have become thoughtless, infantile children who receive Life from a TeeVee set. Because you can’t think, you cannot really see where you are and you cannot with clarity recognize what is happening to you and why. That is, you cannot locate yourselves metaphysically and intellectually.

And this is how and why you are rendered unfree. Your freedom not only is being taken away from you, it has substantially been taken away from you. And all that you do is to sit there, mute overall, complaining about the surface. Yet what has been taken away, in the primary instance, is the capacity to analyze your condition.

And even your ‘complaints’ are weak & fragile. There is something essentially docile in them. It is as though what has come on TeeVee is not to your liking and you are irritated by it.

I wonder how I would react if someone spoke to me like this. I might not like it but I would, this I guarantee you, take it as a challenge to better understand what was being said to me and why.

I have gotten tremendous push-back over the years because of the content of my ideas. My understanding is that we must divorce ourself from sentimental and emotional reaction and must deal only and strictly in ideas. But even that assertion — why it is important and essential — is resented. [And that is the first chapter in Richard Weaver’s book “Ideas Have Consequences”: The Unsentimental Sentiment,/i>].

Conservatism is not some monolithic set of ideas that must be followed in lockstep. If it is, then it is authoritarian and without merit because authoritarianism is antithetical and a deleterious notion to individual liberty that will lead to negative societal outcomes.

Here, you begin to state and restate your basic misunderstanding.

Conservatism must conserve something, so the first order of business is determining what is to be conserved and why. So, you could not even have ‘lockstep’ if you did not have a general sense of what value-structure you were conserving. You complaint about ‘authoritarianism’ is baseless. But, I suggest that you cannot define proper authority. You likely cannot define ‘metaphysical authority’ either. And here, I suggest, is more evidence of your radical state.

In no sense is authority deleterious but I assume that you would struggle to name an authority or idea structures that have authority. That is why you are better defined — in fact you define yourself — as a Libertarian.

So, your opposition to what Conservatism stands for is evidence that you are not a Conservative. Which is really my main point.

‘Individual liberty’ is not the most important thing, despite your emotional or shall I say your *practical* investment in it. This is philosophically and intellectually obvious and hardly needs to be stated. From a Conservative perspective — from a conservative and conserving metaphysics — what is to be preserved is eternal value.

‘Individual liberty’ in the sense that you seem to mean, perhaps without recognizing, is a child’s will to ‘do what the heck he or she pleases’ without having to grasp or to face the consequences. As in ‘ideas have consequences’.

We now live in a society and indeed America has come to mean that radical notions of childish ‘individual liberty’ have become pervasive. They are *sold to the world* and they wind up corrupting. Because ‘individual liberty’ is not the starting point. Duty and responsibility are the starting points. And these can only be defined through a sound metaphysical base and ‘strong conserving definitions’.

For an individual to be ‘free’ and to have ‘liberty’ which is only defined intellectually and indeed spiritually, there is no other possibility for that individual but to submit to rigorous and demanding self-control and self-restraint. Liberty is thus the outcome.

You are losing — better said you have lost — your liberty because its very basis has been almost totally undermined.

Aliza:
You wrote, “A Conservative creates a culture through studied action which does not allow, or resists with tremendous force, the encroachment of deleterious notions, actions, sentiments and finally outcomes.” I would be interested in seeing your list of deleterious notions, actions, sentiments and final outcomes that are arising from the perverse excesses you claim are occurring. A simple list will suffice. That will allow the reader to know what your version of conservativism is fighting against.

How exactly does a conservative create a culture of studied action if it does not try new ideas? One cannot identify and resist with tremendous force the encroachment of deleterious notions, actions and sentiments without testing them first. That suggests a willingness to try does it not?

You went on to say, “ I would prefer it if you would avoid suggesting that you have any idea at all about how the present perverse excesses will be remediated, and also that you would stop assuming that you have any idea what Conservatism is . . . when you do not seem to be one, not really.

If this is your definition of what a ‘Conservative’ does then I must — with respect — point out that you have a deranged perspective. Please do not take offense. This is not an ad hominem attack but one concerned citizen speaking to another. I am only focusing on the structure of your ideas. They are not conservative, unless you transvalue the ideas on which Conservatism is based.”

I apologize that I did not know you were with Moses on the mount when you brought back the clinical definition of conservatism. I have found there are many variations of conservatism. So I find it a bit presumptuous of you to know exactly what defines conservativism. Some definitions are so extreme that they actually violate the definition you gave; unless of course you see the mixing of races to be deleterious because such mixing by definition must dilute the superiority of one – preferred – race’s genes. I ruled out that form of conservatism, as have most people because it cannot be demonstrated there is any deleterious effect on society by such mixing.

You know I would prefer it if you edited all the non-essential asides from your posts to make them more readable. Additionally, you can take all the offense that you want and as a concerned citizen I can tell you that your input is noted but unconvincing. Conservatism is not some monolithic set of ideas that must be followed in lockstep. If it is, then it is authoritarian and without merit because authoritarianism is antithetical to individual liberty.

Whether we are evaluating conservatism versus liberalism, right versus left, or capitalism versus communism each is measured on a continuum of extreme positions. Just because you fall substantially farther right of center than I does not make my perspective any more deranged than I could say of yours.

So I find it a bit presumptuous of you to know exactly what defines conservatism. Some definitions are so extreme that they actually violate the definition you gave; unless of course you see the mixing of races to be deleterious because such mixing by definition must dilute the superiority of one – preferred – race’s genes. I ruled out that form of conservatism, as have most people because it cannot be demonstrated there is any deleterious effect on society by such mixing.

We have not yet gotten to the point of defining what conservatism must conserve. Where I began — with you — is simply in noticing that you do not define things needing to be conserved, except perhaps in what I tend to see as radical notions of ‘liberty’. I am fairly sure that if we were to proceed to examine your notions of ‘liberty’ we would find that they do not actually support either liberty or freedom. For the simple reason that liberty and freedom are effects of proper interior organization. You wind up being free and enjoying liberty because you had located yourself properly — and in respect to timeless values — on an interior plane.

This is very basic stuff Chris.

I admit that I have not completely defined what I think a proper conservative platform should consist of. But this is because I am still in a process of trying to deconstruct and dismantle what opposes or contradicts the metaphysics of conservatism and even the assertion that ‘conservatism’ is valid or necessary. The entire idea has been undermined in this strange present. People orient themselves in relation to very radical ideas that are antithetical to conserving, conservative principles.

Like you, I am a product of our *radical present* and like you I have to force myself to examine my ‘core tenets’ and ‘the thing [I do] practically lay to heart, concerning [my] vital relations to this mysterious universe’.

…unless of course you see the mixing of races to be deleterious because such mixing by definition must dilute the superiority of one – preferred – race’s genes. I ruled out that form of conservatism, as have most people because it cannot be demonstrated there is any deleterious effect on society by such mixing.

Now, racial categories — indeed the entire topic of race — is off-limits for *you*. Within the American Present you are prohibited from any examination of any part of this topic. No one on this Blog can talk about it.

If one has any sort of social position within the culture one had better avoid the topic completely. The reason is because you live in ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave’ and the very free and the very brave have determined that this is simply not a conversation that you are allowed to talk about or think about.

But if someday — let us suppose that it would be that day in which you Chris chose to be a thought-criminal and to turn against the righteous order of things — if someday you decided to entertain those noxious thoughts you would have to set down a wide group of predicates about it. You would have to clarify what *race* is, why and if it is *important*, and why and if it is important to ‘preserve one’s race’ and one’s biological lineage. There is a whole conversation, a whole idea-set, that one would have to carefully lay out even before one could begin to explore it.

But you cannot — you are not allowed — to explore this conversation. You have not explored it (you reject it evidently because of a very simple and rather facile assertion about it). Yet other have, and others do. All that material is there and you know nothing of it. You are not really a part of any such conversation and, I might also add, you are unqualified to discuss any part of it.

(What you have asserted, there in that paragraph above, is not relevant to the conversation and is not the important thing and it is not how the topic should be approached).

There is no way with a few paragraphs that I could introduce you to the very large, the very consequential topic that those concerned about European self-preservation deal in. I could direct you to resources though. But note that my most important assertion is that you are not allowed and you are severely prohibited from thinking about and talking about this topic.To get to the conversation, you’d have to cross that dAnGeRoUs ground first . . .

Ah, so it’s to be show trials, then? Show trials in the fall for those evil oil executives for allowing the air to be polluted, show trials in the spring for those evil oil executives who failed to deliver fuel over the winter, leading to people freezing to death. Totalitarian regimes need show trials, so the people know whom to blame for the government’s failures.

It means subjecting others to slavery, in order that your life not be inconvenienced.

It means never having to bolster your positions: you are right because shut up.

It means that others must serve you, and you never have to serve others.

It means that all the hard questions (like “who will want deliver fuel when we imprison those who did in the past”) are not your concern.

‘If private companies cannot give you your cake and eat it too, then we need to take them over and force the workers to deliver what we want, when we want, how we want it.’ (See the comment about slavery…)

Note this notion has never worked in any nation that has tried it. ‘Oh well, bread lines for thee, caviar for me.’

The green energy industry is the one that should have executives jailed, for fraud. I never cease to be amazed at the money wasted on green energy. I worked for two years in the solar industry and a decade later I worked on wind power. The solar was a failure, they went in too soon. The wind only “worked” because it was subsidized at 90%. Once the gravy subsidies died, the company folded. I personally was paid well, but I did feel a bit bad because I knew it would never succeed. The products worked so I did my job, bit they were a commercial failure.

At my present employer, I work on a crazy profitable product. We’re the market leaders and have milked the product. We’re fighting for investment. Meanwhile, solar was being funded like crazy because it was the “next thing.” 800 million Euro dumped in capital expenses, 400 million in operation loss in 8 years and they pulled the plug. Yep, they lost money on a government subsidized product, and we’re not the only one who have.

If we’d spent the same money on nuclear power, we’d be vastly closer to carbon reduction goals.